The Woman who Parked her Foot on a Stain Already There
I'd like to go back to the blonde injury victim (Boston Marathon) that was a topic of the last update. This time, I'd like to discuss her injuries. First, she has four sizable tears in the sleeve of the right arm. They are signs that shrapnel struck her arm, not dead-on, but merely grazing it. There is no blood dripping along her skin beneath the tears, no visible sign of skin penetration, as would definitely be the case where shrapnel struck the arm dead-on. Yes, there are what look to be small blood marks under some tears, but judging by the size of these marking, the objects that would be expected to cause the much-larger tears did not strike her skin. The insiders made the mistake of putting pellet-sized markings on skin showing through sleeve tears the size of walnuts and oranges.
The tears would be more like punctures through the cloth in dead-on strikes of metal moving at hundreds of miles per hour. Thus, the tears and the lack of expected blood is evidence that the shrapnel came from in front of her, grazing her arm. I'm not suggesting that the shrapnel caused the tears, but that we have no other conclusion if indeed shrapnel struck her sleeve.
There are marks on the front of her legs that indicate an explosion to her front, and yet the sides of her legs are also marred in the same way, suggesting an explosion partly to her right side and partly to her front. This eliminates the possibility that shrapnel struck her on the inside of her right leg, yet the entire upper part of that leg is shown wrapped in a large white cloth in this blonde-on-stretcher image. The obvious problem here is that the insiders are seeking to deceive their audience because she was not bleeding on the upper part of that leg. The blonde image above was 1:05 minute after the explosion, and still there is no blood from her upper right leg.
In the Negro-on-stretcher image, the blonde is shown with a yellow piece of clothing wrapped around the same leg, albeit it's supposedly to slow blood flow to her lower leg wounds. It appears clear from this image that she has no major wound on the upper leg higher than the yellow piece of cloth. The insiders sought to deceive their audience by placing that yellow cloth on (looks like a jacket), for in the three blonde images (all shown in the last update), she is never bleeding at her lower leg. Note how the insiders chose to show the image above with the white plastic bag in front of her largest leg wound. Why didn't they want to release a good dead-on-shot of her biggest leg wound?
If you look closely at the right side of the bag, there are a couple of blood drips from a scratch. On the left side of the scratch there is a large wound, visible in this other blonde image. Well, it's not very visible after all. Why not? Perhaps its because there is no visible blood flow. Her sock at the heel is not drenched in blood. Did the ones who released this image want us to believe that the blood stain was produced by the leg wound? Apparently, yes.
If the audience was to believe that the blood stain on the sidewalk was from the lower-leg injury, we would expect the sock to be drenched completely in blood. There should be no white part of her heel visible. A close-up reveals much flesh visible between the wound and the sock, not to be expected if the wound created that stain. Obviously, there is no flow of blood evident between the wound to the foot that could create the stain. She / they apparently did a bad job on this part of the hoax, which can explain why her wound happens not to be visible in the first blonde image shown above.
It begs the question of whether some insider decided to place the white cloth around her upper leg to provide another way to explain the blood stain. After all, her upper leg was upon the stain too. But if they were thinking that we would imagine a wound on the inside of her leg, it's impossible for shrapnel to strike there according to her visible wounds.
Look at the white area smack in the middle of the blood stain in this overhead image (the one on the left). The blonde has her sock lifted from the spot seen above, and there is a white area where her foot had been planted, a clear indication that the insiders wanted us to believe that her lower-leg wound created the blood stain while her foot was planted upon it. We are to believe that her foot was planted there for considerable time, enough to cause that stain. Never mind that it's unrealistic for her to suffer such a large wound while simply leaving the leg unmoved for all that time; just look at this other blonde image: http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonCowboyFence.jpg
The yellow jacket is not on her lag at 1:37 after the explosion, as per the time of the overhead view. The man in blue is predicted to be the first person to her aid. He doesn't appear to have anything yellow in his possession.
In the center of her blood stain, there are two sock prints, apparently, as shown in the overhead view. Yes, there appears to be one sock print in one direction (corresponding to her foot direction in the Jeff-invisible image) over a second sock print in a different direction (corresponding to her lying-down position as per the overhead image). Perhaps her sock lifted the sticky fake-blood material off the sidewalk.
In the butt-on-stain image, look at all the blood behind the blonde. It's only a minute after the explosion, and there is only one injury victim there to produce all that blood, because the blonde's leg injury certainly didn't cause it. The woman in black shows a lower-leg injury too, right behind the heel of the running shoe of the man in burgundy coat (the injury shows clearer in the Negro-on-stretcher image). The man appears to have a belt in his hand for tying around the woman's upper leg. He was beside this woman from the start of the explosion, and yet he has not yet tied the belt around her leg a minute into the explosion. The woman shows no other injuries to tend to so that this belt should have been tied more quickly. It can be assumed that it's his own belt because no one else stands there watching or helping. Later, the belt is seen on the sidewalk (beside her leg) in the Negro-on-stretcher image. ???
Her legs do not change position through the blonde images to the overhead image to the Negro-on-stretcher image. Are we sure she felt any pain at all? Pain in a limb causes a limb to be moved irresistibly.
The three blonde images were taken between 1:00 and 1:05 after the explosion, but the Negro-on-stretcher image, where the yellow cloth is tied around her upper leg, was significantly later, more than three minutes after the explosion. Why would a yellow tie around her leg be added after the time of the blonde images? The only correct answer is: deception. For, if the legs were not bleeding at the time of the blonde images, it is unlikely that they would be bleeding afterward. If you argue that her leg could start bleeding afterward because it had a big gash, you would need to answer why the yellow cloth was wrapped around the other leg, the one that didn't show the big gash.
In the blonde-on-stretcher image, where her sleeve is rolled up, she shows what looks like a large wound slightly behind her elbow. None of the visible four tears in her sleeve in the butt-on-strain image were at this location, to the extreme right of her arm. The Jeff-invisible image shows a fifth tear right behind the largest of the four tears, but this fifth one is not where the wound is made in the blonde-on-stretcher image. This fifth tear is very problematic as it's to the extreme right of the person. The problem is, the insider who added the blonde-on-stretcher wound didn't account for the direction of the flying shrapnel, which, according to other particulars on her images, came from her front-right side, but sufficiently to her front that shrapnel was able to strike the inside of her right leg. It means that a judge would need to conclude that the explosion was more to her front than to her right side, and yet the wound above is to her extreme right. A person cannot turn the arm sufficient to cause the extreme right side of the elbow area to face frontward. The best that we can do for this arm wound (or fifth tear) is to chalk it up to yet another graze.
The insiders would need to explain, in a court of law if only any wealthy person / group has the courage to get them there, why this blonde has at least five graze markings on her arm, but no solid hits on her arm, her hand, her belly, chest, face or head.
Her left leg is badly swollen. I'm not so sure that a leg can swell that much after only a minute and five seconds. It takes time for the body to move liquids to the flesh parts of a leg trauma; such liquid does not move through the blood stream. How did her leg become swollen, then? I don't think it was swollen. I think this was doctoring of the image, meaning that all three blonde images were doctored.
In the last update, I took the series of images from the video below, and discovered the timing of the progression of its events by comparing the positions of the runners on the road with the same in the Steven Silva video. It was found that every ten pictures / frames was about three seconds of real time. Starting at the video's :22 second point, there are about ten frames from the time that the woman in blue coat has her hand in her pocket, supposedly, and the time that she has her hand in her pocket again at :27. If she's taking a capsule of fake blood from the pocket, she only has it to her face for one frame, not enough time to rub it on, but enough to spray some on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEuzzk03dSo
The man in burgundy coat is right there with the woman he would pretend to help over the next few minutes. The series of pictures starts (it was found in the last update) about three seconds after the explosion. In the same way that the woman he helps merely shows a hand to the forehead to indicate pain / discomfort, the woman in red and black (not the blonde) just sits there from the start, with her hand on forehead, and continues to sit there for minutes afterward. That's not reality to me. If she wasn't seriously injured, she would have gotten up; if she was seriously injured, she would have been writhing. Why was she just waiting there on the same spot? Apparently, for fulfilling the script, which was to pose for the picture below, where we see her in a wheelchair with severely bruised legs. I can't fathom how a pressure-cooker bomb, filled with small pieces of metal, could create, not one, but two vertical wounds that we see below her knees, one vertical wound per leg. Any ideas?
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonWheeledWoman.jpg
Or, if they are not vertical wounds, but rather vertical flows of blood, why is it that all other flows of blood are nearly horizontal?
Stop the video on the frame (at :27) where the woman seems to be putting something back into her pocket. Between the street and the woman helped by the man in burgundy, as well as between both persons, we already see the large patch of blood seen in the blonde images. How can that be reality, so soon after the explosion? What body could drip that much blood so fast? Whenever you have doubts about whether this was a hoax, come back to this and remember it.
In the same frame, see the blood patch between the woman's head and the burgundy coat. That patch is not the one that she is related to, but is the patch that was supposedly created by the wound in the blonde's leg. To make matters worse, the blonde is not yet at this spot in this image. There's no one at that spot who can account for that blood patch. Don't forget this. When you read articles intended to stir your heart for these victims, do not forget.
There is a short strip of grey patio stones (coming from the left of the picture) pointing to the butt area of the man in burgundy. Beyond his butt, this strip of stones points to the blood stain under discussion, between he and the woman's head. You can see this in the Jeff-invisible image. The tip of the strip of patio stones is visible at the top right, and it's pointing directly to the stain where she has her foot planted. There is a stark problem in this alone that the insiders could be jailed on. Do it, somebody. These people have mocked the nation.
Notice that there is a lack of blood stains in the shape of streaks, as would be expected when the force of explosion sends blood flying. Instead, the stains look like someone dropped a liquid from straight up, or smeared it with a tool. The blood between the tip of the grey stones and the man in white t-shirt are not there in the video frame above.
Let's go back to the larger stain between the man in burgundy and the woman he helps. That stain can be seen beside the long strip of grey patio stones. In the blonde images, her legs are on top of that long strip, and yet here her legs are not there yet. How then, could her leg wound have created that blood stain. It's obvious that the insiders wanted their audience to believe that this blood stain was created by her leg wound.
Still looking at the same frame (the one where woman in blue coat has her hand at her pocket for the second time), see the single near-white patio stone to the right of the woman's grey coat. That's the one seen beside the black bag in the Jeff-invisible image, the one that the blonde was beside. Let the video play to the next frame; although the blonde is clearly not in the frame, nor can we see the black bag beside her, see the blonde's missing shoe in the blood stain right where it's seen in the Jeff-invisible image (the toe of the show points to the building in both images, but the position is not quite the same; it had been moved between images). It means that the blonde must be nearby, and that she came over to plant her foot in the blood stain that was already there.
Let the video play one more frame. Suddenly, a man and a woman appear from the left, and have gone much too far for the time allotted for one frame. It means that, in some cases, frames may be missing from this series. That in turn means that the woman in blue coat may have had her hand at her face, with the blood capsule, for longer than the one frame that we see. As grey-sleeved Bauman appears in this series of pictures, I have been certain that it belongs to, and was released by, insiders...which would well explain the missing frames / pictures.
Let's go to the 2:29 point in the video (your time might be bang-on with mine), which by the way is called, "Boston Marathon ALL FAKE INJURIES Part II". We are again to the series of images, and are now viewing them in a WIDER scene, but we still cannot find the blonde at her spot. Where was she before coming to plant her foot on the blood stain that is already there nine seconds into the blast???
[Insert -- There is some red and black beside the burgundy coat, near the Jeff-spot, that I have never deciphered before, until most of this blonde section was written. It's at :23-24, and it turned out to be the blonde herself. I don't know how this evaded me in the past. However, keep reading what I have to say as though the blonde is not visible in this "video," for due to my not seeing her, I searched elsewhere to find her, and I think I found her elsewhere 11 seconds after the explosion. If correct, then she must have been pasted into the scene at :23-24. End Insert]
At the 2:29 point, the woman in blue coat has her hand in her pocket (presumably) for the first time. It is at this frame where the runner in orange has just about reached the lamp post, which in the Silva video corresponds to about :13/14 seconds, seven or eight seconds after the blast. Where was the blonde between eight seconds in and 28 seconds in? Below we find that she was at her spot on the sidewalk within 20 seconds of eight seconds in. She couldn't have been very far.
Here is my copy of an image from Wikipedia's article on the event in case the one at Wikipedia disappears. It is timed some seconds later; the man in shredded pants and the woman in blue coat have both moved to the patio railing. Apparently, they did so as directed to get out of the way of people who need to walk through. The image at Wikipedia (below) is much clearer and allows us to verify that the blonde is in her position (my image doesn't bring her red out very much), the same basic position as per the three blonde images later on. Judging from her position here, somewhat between the burgundy coat and the street, it becomes even more definite that she was NOT at this location in the series of frames above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1st_Boston_Marathon_blast_seen_from_2nd_floor_and_a_half_block_away.jpg
In the top-right corner of the image at Wikipedia, there are two men in blue coats, both with white tags at their belly area, walking toward the explosion scene. There is a man in yellow between them, wherefore this scene corresponds to the :34 second point of the Silva video, about 28 seconds after the explosion.
Having thus timed the Wikipedia image for the first time, it verifies a conclusion of the last update, that the blonde's movements were from nearest-to-the-street at 1:06 of the Silva video, to a few hand breadths further from the street at 1:07, and still further from the street (almost to the long row of grey patio stones) at 1:11 in the butt-on-stain image. In the Wikipedia image, as well as in the cowboy-on-fence image (1:06), the blonde is about four feet (about six patio stones) from the long row of grey patio stones, but only three patio stones (about two feet) away in the butt-on-stain image.
Again, where was the blonde between eight seconds in and 28 seconds in? In fact, the series of pictures plays on until 2:44, afterwhich the scene goes too smoky to see. Yet, at 2:44, we still don't see the blonde at her spot. The 2:44 point is about 13 seconds into the explosion, because the 2:39 point was determined, on the Swiss-flag evidence (see last update), to be 11 seconds after the explosion. Where was she between 13 seconds in and 28 seconds in??? Does it make sense that she would come to her spot just as it got too smoky to see anything?
The Swiss flag (just a cross in the middle) did not start to fly high until 2:39, corresponding to the :17 point in the Silva video. There is a great shot in front of the patio at :17, with some visibility into that area...where the blonde would come to sit (these coats are visible at 2:39). The blonde would come to sit between the left end of the patio and these white coats. I have a good video version (of the Silva video) with no black-outs, in case your version shows black-outs. At :18, I can see a the bright cap of the woman in pink (she is clear at 2:39) at the left corner of the patio, as she's walking across the patio at 2:41. The man in burgundy can faintly be seen under her. There is no sign of the blonde up to the :20 point, when Silva's camera goes off the scene to the left. Hmm, she must have popped in almost as fast as she could be pasted in, if you catch my drift. I suppose it's possible, however, that she came out of the Marathon Place (the place that owns the outdoor patio), and quickly took a position on the sidewalk while the smoke was billowing. Why was she late?
At :21, there can be found (with patience) a long red thing, just above the blue fabric on the scaffolding, that could be a red sleeve. There is black on both sides of the red thing that could be her black top. However, this red thing, seen last at :29, does not move from its position under the blue-and-white flag in front of Lenscrafters.
The image from Wikipedia, showing her at her spot 28 seconds in, appears to be from the same camera that shot the 411 timeclock scene and the scenes that caught the woman who wheeled Jeff Bauman away (see last update for that discussion). This camera should have captured the blonde coming onto the scene. Anyone who takes these trolls to court could have access to that camera's video, or to the one who is responsible for destroying it if and when that happens. Under cross examination, this woman would need to answer: "Where were you 16 seconds before you appear in the Wikipedia image"?; "Did you plant your sock on a blood stain that was already there"? "What or who made you come out at that time to plant your sock on the sidewalk"? "Who saw you just before you walked out"?
The Other Blonde at the Pile-Up Must be the One-Shoe Blonde
After writing all the above, I went back to town to load more videos and pictures not seen before. Until now, I haven't had my personal copy of the non-smooth video, "Crisis Actor Caught During Explosion" (webpage below) where the man with pouches is shown with his pouches loaded. This time, I was looking to see if I had missed the one-shoe blonde in that pile-up, and sure enough, there was found a blonde who could apply. She wears a hot pink jacket and what could be a black outfit (a must) underneath. She is beside a right leg (no shrapnel injuries visible) with a running shoe on it's right foot; we never see the left leg to check whether it's got only a sock. Only at some points does it appear possible to be the leg of the blonde in hot pink. The pants on this leg's upper part looks black, and the pant line is cut off (see :07 and :13) exactly where the one-shoe blonde has her black pant cut off on her right leg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03UMewFYD6w
I can get three frames during :10, but if you pause at the first frame during that second, where her face is visible and her hair is flowing out, one can see that the highlighted color in her dyed hair, as well as the hair texture, are a perfect match with the one-shoe blonde (the face is more-fully visible at :12). Plus, we can see the hair parted on the left side, where it appears to be parted in her butt-on-stain image.
I conclude already that, because the one-shoe blonde is missing at her famous spot in this non-smooth "video," this "other" blonde next to Mr. Pouches must have been she, yet disguised with a hot-pink jacket which she removed before posing at her famous spot.
I don't know whether the running shoe is a perfect match with the one on the one-shoe woman because I can't see the top of it (which is the part shown in the butt-on-stain image). The best shot of the upper part of the shoe is during :08, where it shows a white sole and a thin white line down the middle of the shoe, right where the blonde's shoe has a white line in her Jeff-invisible scene. Both shoes are of the same grey tone. Both images appear to show a short-sock above the shoe line in a grey color.
In the :10 frame above where her hair flows out, note how her running shoe is too flat to the sidewalk, an impossibility for a right leg when a person is sitting up, as she is at this time. It looks like the left leg of a person lying on the stomach. However, at :12, the toe of the shoe is pointed up, impossible for a person lying on the stomach. Thus, it indicates a paste job. At :13, the leg is bent as it should be for a person sitting up.
I definitely think this leg was pasted in at :10, but why? Was the running shoe and/or the leg changed to keep us from knowing that this was the blonde known, the world over, at a different spot?
Before we leave the first frame of :10, see what looks to be a leg coming out of shorts on the "checkered-shirt Bauman." The leg (touches the light green arm of a woman) appears to be blown off below the knee cap, with the knee cap still on.
In the second and third frame of the "video," at :04 and :05, the mystery leg begins to appear, but its position is such as to make it impossible to be the leg of the blonde. At :05 and :06, the impression is that the blonde is in the middle of the bare legs of someone else lying on his/her back in FRONT of her. However, how strange, for in the very next frame, at :07, the leg changes position drastically to the tune of 90 degrees, and cannot now be on a person lying in front of the blonde, but on someone lying BEHIND her, and moreover it does not look like it can be the leg of the blonde herself, as it appears that her hips are to the left of her head with legs pointed further left, while this curious bare leg (absolutely a paste job) is to her right. There was definitely some monkey tampering with this video, a sloppy monkey indeed. At :07, notice how fake the pants are torn at the knees of the woman in blue coat. It does not look at all as though a bomb tore her pants like that.
See the very first frame at :04, where the left hand of the old woman in red and black is showing fully, with no blood upon it. This is the woman with vertical wounds who, upon her wheelchair, is shown with severe wounding on her left hand. Big problem there. We never get to see her legs well below the knees to verify if they had the same wounds as seen in the wheelchair scene. But there she can be seen, from two or three seconds after the blast, simply sitting and complaining of a headache, more or less. That is not reality; she's a lousy actress.
I'm going to conclude that the curious / flipped / pasted leg cannot be proven to be that of the blonde, but, just the same, I'm tentatively concluding that she is the one-shoe blonde. What we need to do now is find the timing of the very last scene in this video segment to see how long the blonde was at this location (in the pile of people). You will note that the old man in red coat gets to a sitting position not long before the last frame, and then, at the last frame (foggy / smoky), he's on his way back to a lying position. In the video below, where the same non-smooth series of pictures are shown from a more-distant view, the man in red coat has sat up at 2:38 (we can see Mr. Pouches with a bare back at this point, about to pull the strings behind his hips), about 11 seconds after the blast. At 2:43, about 12 seconds after the blast), the scene goes foggy, just as it is in the last scene of the segment above. The video ends the segment at 2:46, which was at 12-13 seconds in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEuzzk03dSo (Boston Marathon ALL FAKE INJURIES Part II)
Therefore, I expect that the segment above was cut off from public viewing about a dozen seconds after the explosion because the blonde started her change of position at that time. Someone didn't want us to see her get up and move to a new position, isn't that right? Someone didn't want us to see her taking off her jacket? But then where did her jacket go?
[Insert -- Not many days after writing here, I learned that the woman in pink jacket appears in a scene that is almost the Wikipedia image at :28 seconds. She is not visible in the Wikipedia image, but is amply visible in the image below. Both blondes appear together in the image below, and yet I will not delete what I've said below because paste jobs are to be expected for key purposes. I realize how flat it sounds for me to simply claim a paste job where an image doesn't jibe with my theory, but what's below is fairly compelling.
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonPinkJacket.jpg
Moreover, I have since found two images with a blonde woman in a pink coat, of exactly the hue of the pink coat under discussion. The two images (one is the Jeff-invisible scene) are back-to-back in time, but she is most vivid in the cowboy-on-fence image...which was itself found to be fraudulent. She's simply walking away in the top left, with a white bag on her jacket, as though she were never at ground zero. Is that a credible thing, that she should be simply walking away? Or was she added to this scene to explain why she doesn't appear in other images of the injury scene beyond :28 seconds? We now have two scenes where both blondes appear, exactly what the insiders would like us to see, if the blondes were the same person. End Insert]
Amazingly, on the same day that I discovered her in the heap of people (in front of Lenscrafters), I found a new image (below) showing what must be the blonde standing up in front of Lenscrafters at 11 SECONDS after the blast!!! What a stroke of luck, if it was merely that. I had first found the following CBS image where the quality was not sharp, and could not tell whether it was the blonde. But then I came across a series of marathon photos from CBS where the same image was more visible, showing two red sleeves with a black outfit between them, on a person that appeared to be, not sitting, but standing, meaning that she was on her way to the spot where she would sit and feign her injuries. CBS will not allow anyone to download its photos, and so I hope the image is still at the website below when you are reading here. If ever you find it elsewhere, save it, because CBS may delete it for the evidence against her that it can act as.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-201_162-10016468-4.html
If the image above disappears, see it here from my files:
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonRedSleeves.jpg
Expand the better CBS image to see the red sleeves under the flag with horizontal red-and-white bars. It's important that the camera view is a straight line through this flag because it helps us to pin down exactly where she's standing. The flag is between the lamp post and Lenscrafters, meaning that she has not yet reached her position on the other side of the lamp post! I am so amazed that this image exists. I simply couldn't have asked for a better "miracle" yesterday, when I came to the end of the blonde topic, exhausting all I could say with the question left unanswered as to where she was before sitting at her spot. And here I found her so soon.
The red sleeves, if that's what they are (I think so), are not physically under that flag, but merely show as if they are. She is standing further back from that flag. To find the timing of this image from CBS, we find that the two police officers, walking in unison above the yellow shoulder, are walking TOWARD the blue fabric on the scaffolding, with a third police officer walking toward it too. In the non-smooth video, the first two officers can be seen together walking parallel with that fabric between 2:26 and 2:36, but at 2:37, they turn together and begin to walk toward the fabric. Therefore, the CBS image is after the 2:37 mark (11 seconds after the blast). It appears solid that the CBS scene (judging especially from the woman in yellow at the lower left of the CBS image) corresponds to the :17 point of the Silva video. Thus, the woman with red sleeves appears standing up in the image provided by CBS at 11 seconds after the explosion (the initial explosion is at the :06 point of the Silva video), at the very time that the non-smooth pictures are no longer shown to us.
[Insert -- The week after writing here, the image below was found thanks to an emailer. It shows the timeclock reading 4:09:55 -- 12 seconds after the blast -- and the three police officers are in the same basic position as per the CBS image. The cameraman taking the CBS image appears to be none other than the long-haired cameraman in yellow vest.
http://www.tribwatch.com/boston12Seconds.jpg
]
At 2:40, the hot pink coat is not visible (much, anyway) in the pile-up to the left of the red coat. I can't be sure whether she is in that pile at this time, but I've decided that she is not. In the pile-up, she is definitely not in a straight line from the camera through the red-and-white flag as per the CBS image. From 2:39 through to 2:44, there's a person (not the blonde) with red coat standing in a straight line from the finish line through the red-and-white flag, but with closer study, it turns out that his coat cannot be the red thing in the CBS image. One might assume that there is a person appearing as black between the sleeves of his red coat, but one can also entertain the possibility that the blonde got up, and walked a little toward the street -- so as to be in the correct line / position for the CBS image -- before cutting across to her famous position. The latter is my position that bears out.
I'm not asking anyone to believe the wrong thing just to make my blonde theory work out. I don't want to believe a false thing.
If we draw a line from the red coat through the red-and-white flag, it goes to the particular end of the finish line at the bleachers, but the CBS image does not suggest a camera that far across the street. The CBS image (may not belong to CBS) is definitely from a camera on the street, not higher up in the press box. According to the line of that camera, the camera is on the opposite side of the street from the bleachers. It can be ascertained that the camera taking the image provided by CBS is to the right of (further from the bleachers from) the camera taking the Silva video.
Therefore, the red things / sleeves MUST be standing closer to the red-and-white flag than the red coat appears at 2:39-44. That is, the red sleeves must be very near the street curb while at the same time further down the street than the red-and-white flag. The red things / sleeves must not be way back in the crowd, and indeed the CBS image gives the impression of a person near the road at the front of the crowd. In other words, the red sleeves must be standing more like beneath the flag with blue and white and two stars, three flag posts down the road from the red-and-white flag.
It was noted earlier in this update that a red object under the blue-and-white flag, as seen in the Silva video, was not moving from under the flag. Here is what I wrote at that time, the day before discovering (and discussing) the CBS image:
At :21 [of the Silva video], there can be found (with patience) a long red thing, just above the blue fabric on the scaffolding, that could be a red sleeve. There is black on both sides of the red thing that could be her black top. However, this red thing, seen last at :29, does not move from its position under the blue-and-white flag in front of Lenscrafters.
It turns out that the red sleeves in the CBS image are exactly this red thing under the blue-and-white flag.
The :29 point of the Silva video was 23 seconds after the blast, and the blonde must be in her famous sitting position at 28 seconds after the blast (as per the Wikipedia image's timing). If she hurried from under the blue-and-white flag, I suppose she could make it in time. But what was she doing under the blue-and-white flag all that time, from the 2:43 point of the non-smooth video (corresponds to the about 12 second mark) to the 23-second point? The black bag. There is always a black bag behind the blonde in her sitting position. Did she go get the black bag under the blue-and-white flag? Why?
Why did she need to bring this bag to her sit-down spot? Or, if it's just her personal bag/purse, why have it down by the street instead of beside her at her pile-up location? What woman would leave a purse that far away under such circumstances? While other women are typically with purses/bags, the blonde in hot pink shows no purse strap over her upper body, though the one-shoe blonde shows a black strap over her upper body in the Wikipedia image. Therefore, if her personal bag was on her body under the hot-pink jacket, why did she bring that black bag to the spot that sits on the sidewalk behind her? Again, that bag is not on the sidewalk in the series of non-smooth images at the time that she herself is not there. But neither have I ever seen that bag open. Was it stuffed with some balls / jars that Mr. Pouches released?
The problem is, we never see the blonde in the pile-up get up to walk to the blue-and-white flag. Did she stay low so as not to be seen by the camera? Was she deleted out from the non-smooth video as she made that walk? Her pink coat is visible until 2:28, but seems to be a mere pink smudge between 2:29 and 2:32, afterwhich it seems to disappear. It is not visible as Mr. Pouches is standing at 2:32, seeking to find and pull the strings behind his hips between 2:34 and 2:39. Some very-faint pink smudge can be seen after 2:39 right where the blonde is expected, and it lasts through to 2:43, but this would have been easy to paste in.
I regret that I can explain my theories more easily by simply claiming paste job after paste job, which is why I like to show evidence for any paste job that I claim.
The pink object that appears at 2:35 at the corner of the window frame should not be mistaken for the red things / sleeves under the blue-and-white flag. They are close to one another, but not quite at the same location. They are about two flag posts from one another. Back in April/May, I discussed a rectangular pink object in this area of the scaffolding where the pink object is seen at 2:35. However, I may have been wrong to conclude that the same pink object seen in the Silva video, at its 2:43 point, was one or two of those rectangular objects. I now realize that the pink at the 2:43 point of the Silva video could be the pink jacket taken off by the blonde when she went to that general spot.
One perfectly-rectangular pink object is at the 2:02-04 point of the Silva video. A bald man with sunglasses on his forehead (the blonde's husband???) can be seen in the lower-left corner holding a pink object of rectangular shape in the 411 timeclock image, which is timed at the 2:03 point of the Silva video, smack when this rectangular object is seen in the Silva video. Therefore, either there were at least two such rectangular objects, or one of these two was pasted in. This now gets very interesting; don't give up reading here.
The rectangular object is situated a few feet further up the street than the blue-and-white flag with two stars...that is being taken down by men at 1:57 (of the Silva video). This two-star flag is positioned two flag posts up the street from another blue-and-white flag under which the jacket-like object was situated (seen at the 1:42 point). The rectangular object can be seen ON the sidewalk in the overhead image (timed at the 1:44 point of the Silva video), and, fortunately, just down the street a little, the overhead image shows another pink object that is supposedly the not-so-rectangular one at the 1:42 point of the Silva video. One can even see the man holding Silva's camera on the street, with the camera pointed toward that pink object. Although it may not look like it in the overhead image, the object is a few feet directly behind the pole of the blue-and-white flag...hanging over the top of the wood-slat fence, well above the sidewalk (one would tend to hang a jacket on something).
The blonde in pink jacket is not visible anywhere in the overhead image. Her position (blocked by the man in dark shirt and dark shorts) was beside the woman in purple, who is still there in her spot. The lousy female actress in red and black (her red not visible here), with vertical leg wounds, is still sitting there doing a lousy job. I hope she got minimum wage for this stunt.
As you can see at the link above, my overhead scene is amongst three images at one page. The image on the top-right is a few seconds (about 1:50 of Silva-video time) after the overhead image on the left. The one on the right likewise fails to show the blonde in her red-pink jacket. In this image, her position was between the two police officers and above the woman in purple. The fact that the pink jacket and its owner is absent everywhere (in all the images I've scrutinized) suggests that it the jacket was hung on the fence.
Not failing to understand that the one-shoe blonde was a major-media matter, almost on par with the Bauman media hoax, one needs to ask why the insiders would release these two images showing a pink object hanging up, but without the woman in pink jacket appearing in the scenes. Isn't that dangerous for them to do? It turns out that they were trying to avoid danger as per some things gone initially wrong in the blonde plot. The image on the right likewise shows the pink object on the fence, only, the problem is, it doesn't look like a jacket at all; it's rectangular in shape, and it's shown wholly on the streetside of that fence, which contradicts the Silva video and the overhead image where the same object is NOT wholly on the streetside of the fence (some of it is, and some isn't).
Therefore, in the image on the right, it looks like tampering may have taken place to make this object look like it wasn't her jacket. When the men are shown removing the scaffolding and the wood fence, starting about 1:55 (seconds after the two scenes above), the pink object is not visible on the fence. However, at 2:04, there is, for a brief second, a piece of rectangular-shaped, paper-like object colored pink on one side and yellow on the other. It's on the sidewalk exactly below where the pink object had been suspended on the fence. It looks like I'm wrong for suggesting it was a jacket. But that's perhaps exactly what the insiders want you to think. Their problem is, at 2:03 Silva-video time, the pink object is in the possession of a bald man in blue in the timeclock image.
Was that paper-thin object real, or pasted in to "assure" us that it isn't the jacket? Who in there right minds would even suspect that this pink thing could be the jacket of the pile-up blonde, especially as it's not feasible to know whether she wears a jacket verses a shirt. Ahh, but, knowing all that they knew, they also knew that someone who studied these images could catch on, that the blonde in hot pink is the blonde in red sleeves so that she MUST be wearing a removable jacket rather than a permanent top / shirt. How would anyone catch on to that? Because, she's missing at her spot in the non-smooth pictures. Uh, oh. They realized that they blew it by releasing those images in that way.
On the right end of the paper-like thing on the sidewalk, there is something pink underneath it. Could that be part of the jacket? Did they try to both hide and confuse the jacket, using a pasted rectangular-shaped paper object? I haven't an answer yet to that question.
Now for the killer. It all happened by chance, so amazing. There is a pink object seemingly at the top of the wood fence at 2:35 and the 2:39-42 point of the non-smooth video (as provided by the All-Fake-Injuries video), which corresponds to 11-12 seconds after the explosion, seemingly too soon for the blonde in pink jacket to be at that spot. She was still in the pile-up at that time, or so we are led to believe. As per some close scrutiny (I almost missed it), it looks like the pink object was pasted into this scene (remember, Jeff is in this scene and he was pasted in, so why not paste in other needs?) Back the video up to 2:33, and then play the video to see the emergence of the pink thing at 2:34. In a frame during 2:36, the object is seen carried between the arm and the jacket of a man in blue jacket. The hand is visible on the object.
I know who the man in blue jacket is. This was a freak-out moment.
.
In the next frame, still during 2:36, the pink object (looks very rectangular) is being extended by the hand away from his body. This is when the object looks largest. The man in blue can now be seen with a red cap. Strangely / inexplicably, the next frame shows the man retracting the pink object and placing it again between his arm and jacket...in the same way that a pink object is carried by the bald man in blue jacket in the 411 timeclock scene. Why should the man in red cap be concerned for this pink object just 11 seconds after the explosion? Why would he extend it for a less then a second to no one at the other end? Remember, each frame here is a split-second of real time so that if we can arrive to a motive for extending the object so quickly and drawing it back in again, then a paste job is more credible.
The object is positioned exactly at the top of the wood fence, and then disappears behind the window frame, wherefore one is left to conclude that this will be the pink object in the Silva video. The purpose in extending the object could be explained as giving us the false impression of a rectangular object, not a jacket. The man's hand is on the lower corner of the rectangular shape when he's extending it away from his body, and a flimsy jacket could not possibly form a rectangle shape ABOVE his hand, wherefore we conclude that it's definitely a rigid object able to hold a rectangular shape.
However, in at least one frame of the Silva view of this object, it had an irregular shape, not at all rectangular. Therefore, I am going to reject what we are apparently seeing during the 2:34-42 segment as concerns that pink object.
I remind you, that at the very frame where the pink object is being extended, there is a clear view of the location where the one-shoe blonde should be sitting, but she is NOT there. The sidewalk is completely empty where she should be sitting, between the burgundy coat and the wood fence. Therein is your only evidence needed for proving a fraud, but be sure that if push comes to shove, the insiders will develop a "good reason" as to why she wasn't at that spot at that time. I'd sure like to hear it, though, because they would then need to explain where she was until then!
For the killer, let's go see the same object in the Wikipedia image (see same image below if this one disappears), to see who the man in blue coat is. He suddenly has lost his red cap (worn at times by marathon employees with blue coats), and we can make out that his coat (with hood, not an official marathon coat) is identical to the one worn by the bald man, holding the rectangular object, in the timeclock image. He is the same bald man, period, right down to the jeans and running shoes. In the Wikipedia image, he is directly beside the pink object hanging on top of the wood fence, and it's just 28 seconds after the explosion, just 17 seconds after we saw a man with blue arm extending the pink object out along the top of the fence. Who but the blonde's own husband would want to eradicate the pink jacket from this spot, and replace it with something else that's pink?
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonWikipedia.jpg
Look at an online picture of the blonde (Nicole Brannock Gross) with her husband (Michael Gross) from the image below (or see him in my own files here or here ). Compare him with the man in the timeclock image. It looks like a perfect match. Why wasn't this man beside his wife, if that's what she was????????????? I'm screaming. Why wasn't the husband beside his injured wife???? You will read below that this husband was at the scene, and yet we never see him beside his wife! What a stinking sham. Off to the clinker with them, lop off their heads, toss them to the alligators.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/face-boston-tragedy-article-1.1318456
I kid you not, that I had been working for days on this blonde-versus-blonde topic / argument, and for an entire day on the pink-object topic, before realizing that the man in the Wikipedia image is the blonde's reported husband. It cannot be coincidental that he appears there with the pink object. I am onto something important enough to get me killed. Mr. Pouches is gone from the Wikipedia image too, just a dozen seconds after he was supposedly at that spot. Shouldn't we bring Mr. Pouches to a court and ask what happened to him?
Now look closely at the man carrying a little girl in the Wikipedia image. Look at the outline of his image, because one can see the paste job. They are pasted in directly where the blonde in pink coat was, who cannot now be seen anywhere, and it's just 15 seconds after we saw her at this very spot in the non-smooth video. There is a tiny bit of white outline (sloppy-work) along the man's shoulder and arm that betrays the paste job. The white line, under a magnifying glass, can be seen going right down to his elbow.
There is no man with red cap anywhere in the Wikipedia image. The pink object looks like a rolled piece of pink cardboard, slid through the wood slats so as to be suspended in a vertical position extending high above the top of the fence. However, it is not evident whatsoever, in the Silva video (1:42) that this object extends above the fence. When it first appears, it is obviously not on the fence and extending above the fence, and yet, just about as the camera is about to leave the object, it may appear to a sloppy monkey that it extends above the fence. Therefore, a sloppy monkey pasted the roll higher than the fence line.
The pink roll, as I'll call it here, looks identical to the pink object in the right-side image of the overhead-image page. Both objects should therefore be pasted.
Another problem for a dizzy monkey is that, in the left-side overhead-page image, the object appears to be one or two scaffolds / flag poles down the street from the white-and-blue flag that it's actually at according to the Silva video. It's not a couple of flags down the street, but merely appears to be if one's not careful. Then, as if a monkey got this wrong, the pink roll is, in the right-side image, one or two scaffolds down the street from the same blue-and-white flag. Very critical mistake there. In the right-side image (timed just eight seconds after the Silva video shows a pink object on the fence), there is no other pink object on the fence, just the roll...so that they can't claim there was a pink object at each flag pole. (The second pink object seen in the overhead page is the rectangular object on the sidewalk, which the Silva video also shows).
There is no yellow on either side of this rolled cardboard (if that's what it is), in case you'd be fooled into confusing it with the pink and yellow cardboard addressed earlier.
Go ahead and see the 1:42 point in the Silva video to note that the roll is not a roll at all in that image. It's something else. Check out what flag its at. There is a yellow thing (looks like a jacket) in front of, and partially obscuring, the pink object. In the new-to-me image below, there is an alternative shot of the non-rectangular pink object in the fence; I time this image, off the cuff, between 1:32 and 1:42 Silva-video time. The pink object does not look like a cardboard roll whatsoever here, but, admittedly, I have a hard time seeing it as a jacket. On the other hand, if it's not a piece of clothing, it's nothing else I would know. It doesn't look right.
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonPinkObject.jpg
If your copy of the Silva video plays games with you by inserting black boxes in this important image, you need to download the video using the iLivid program (free download online), for after I did so, all the black boxes were gone.
I do not see the man in blue jacket (i.e. the husband) in the right-side image timed at 1:50 of the Silva video, just 13 seconds before we see him in the timeclock scene holding the rectangular object. It suggests that the man with his object was off the camera view to the left at the time, meaning also that the roll on the fence was pasted into the right-side scene (totally ignoring that the man had it with him). However, confusing as it is, the roll was pasted in, wherefore the man didn't have it with him, because the roll did not exist. If it did exist and it was not pasted into the timeclock scene, the man in blue must have picked it up off the fence between the right-side scene and 13 seconds later. The Silva video does not show that part of the scene during those 13 seconds to prove or disprove that the man in blue picked up the roll.
There is no man in blue in the general vicinity of the pink object in the following image that's new to me a day ago as I write. The image can be timed (using the Silva-video images) a few seconds after 1:50 Silva-video time, but before 1:58. The pink object is blocked by the bald fireman on his radio. The "husband" of the blonde will be shown at the left-side corner of the patio in about ten seconds or less after this image. Why doesn't he show here either walking to the pink object, or away from it having picked it up???
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonNoHusband.jpg
Near the back-left of this image, the bald man appears with the grey hoodie (military man in green shirt is beside him). He too looks like the husband of the blonde. The bald man in blue is not to be found in this image, even though his wife is supposedly in this crowd.
After writing the above, bingo, a new-to-image of a timeclock scene was found with a time of 2:33 minutes after the explosion, showing the scaffolding and fence fully drawn back just before the Silva video ends. There is nothing pink on the fence. I also saw an image about four seconds after my 411 timeclock image with the bald man walking toward the street with the pink object under his arm. I never see him again in images timed after that.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hahatango/8652882879/sizes/k/in/set-72157633252445135/
Having said all that, go back to the CBS image and enlarge as fully as you can. Find the flag pole, no matter that it's faint, of the blue-and-white flag with stars. Follow that flag pole down until it comes smack between the two red vertical things that look like sleeves, with black between the sleeves. Isn't that the woman in pink jacket, but with the jacket removed, prepared to act as the one-shoe blonde??? YES, for there is a third area with slight red, at the neck area, just like the neck area of the blonde in the butt-on-stain image. This woman needs to go to prison with all her crew.
Now pause the Silva video at :19, and continually double-click fast until you see a red vertical thing beside some black beside the flag post of the blue-and-white flag with stars. If you don't see them in the next second or two, go back and try again until you get the frame. To the right of these red vertical lines there is a larger red object, which must be the man in red coat.
The Silva camera returns at :23-24 to capture the same red under the same flag, and it looks just like a roll, with what looks to be a man in blue jacket to its left. Hmm. However, at :29, the object has changed shape, suggesting that it's a person. Now there are two frames each with a relatively large black area between two vertical red lines. In one frame (the second one), the black area is the size of a person's back flat against the camera (with the flat of the back parallel with the street curb). The vertical lines on either side are identical in shape, and are the size of a person's arms; it no longer looks like a roll, does it? It looks perfectly like the black vest of the blonde.
What appears to have happened, then, is that the husband wanted to disguise these red sleeves in this very image, to make it look like it was a pink roll that he placed there. The insiders agreed to do this for him.
At :29, it's 23 seconds after the explosion, and the blonde has just five seconds to sit down as per in the Wikipedia image. Looking for the blue coat and/or the pink roll on the fence at and near the :29 point. Neither are there beside the red sleeves. One can see three and four flags down the street from the red sleeves, and yet there is no pink roll there, or blue coat, even though the non-smooth video had a man in blue extend a pink object from that spot some dozen seconds after the blast. The :29 point is just five seconds before we see the man in blue beside the roll suspended on the wood fence (Wikipedia image). It therefore looks as though the blonde's husband was pasted into the Wikipedia image along with the pink roll. Don't even begin to think that the red sleeves are the pink roll.
Suddenly, the threat / mistake appears to be in the image shared by CBS, though it may have been given to the world by some other media initially. There is no way that the red sleeves (:29 point of CBS image) are representative of the pink object extremely clear in the Silva video. The color is way off too, especially as the sleeves appear through much smoke, making it less likely for pink to show that dark. The red hue is extremely evocative of the red hue in the blonde's sleeves. There is no other color in the crowd that shows through like these sleeves, but at :30, after the camera goes up off the scene and then back down again, there is at least one frame where the red is right beside some blue at jacket height.
Just before the Silva camera leaves the red object at :29, it changes shape. The black becomes much thinner to the point of almost invisible. To put it another way, the left red arm disappears, meaning that the person has turned away from having the back parallel with the street. It should be the sign that she's on her way up the street. I can catch a glimpse of her left arm going down simultaneous with the reduction in black color, which could be when she picks up her black bag. In fact, in a frame that I can freeze with just one red arm showing (her right arm), there is what looks like a black vertical stripe (with red on both sides) on the back of the arm that's just as wide as the belt of a bag should be.
We now have the reality: a wife-and-husband team, if indeed they are married. But why did the insiders have her change position? My bet is that she had to get some of whatever was inside the pouches that Mr. Pouches released. No sooner did he release them into the spread-legs of the dirty-blonde woman with jeans, that the one-shoe blonde took some, and went to her blood stain on the other side of the lamp post. Her name, I've just discovered, is Nicole Brannock Gross, according to a Huffington Post article:
Nicole Brannock Gross was cheering for her mother near the Boston Marathon's finish line when a bomb went off.
The first time the world saw Nicole Brannock Gross, she was dazed and knocked to the blood-covered ground [the only problem now is, she wasn't at the spot where she was knocked down], moments after the first bomb exploded at the Boston Marathon in April.
The photograph of Gross, seen around the world, became an instant symbol of the attack. After suffering two breaks in her left leg and an injury to her Achilles tendon, the Boston Globe reported that Gross has been re-learning how to walk [baloney, she walked right after the explosion, from the pile-up to the stain where she planted her sock]. Her sister, Erica Brannock, lost part of her leg [interesting, I'm wondering who she is as per the images] as the two sisters stood near the finish line waiting for their 57-year-old mother to finish the legendary road race, WJZ said.
Now, the sisters, their mother, and Gross' husband gave their first interview to CBS to talk about what they remember from bombing that killed three and injured more than 260.
WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW
The force from the blast lifted Gross off her feet and flung her backward [where? Which spot?].
Looking at the iconic image of herself hunched with a ripped red shirtsleeve on the pavement was too painful at first, Brannock Gross told CBS' Lee Woodruff [oh there. But she wasn't sitting there at first]...
...Erika Brannock, a preschool teacher in Maryland, "[remembers] just falling back in slow motion," Brannock said. "Everything went quiet. And then I was scared for dear life that another bomb was gonna go off. And that's how I was gonna die."
The sisters were treated in different Boston hospitals, but spoke almost daily as they recovered. Michael Gross, Nicole's husband, slept in a chair next to her hospital bed for three and a half weeks until she was discharged to return home to Charlotte, N.C. He suffered burns in the explosion [she should have gone to prison, not a hospital].
A fund was set up to raise money for the sisters and Michael Gross as they undergo rehabilitation. There's a separate fund to exclusively assist Erika Brannock.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/nicole-brannock-gross-boston-marathon-bombing-photo_n_3359462.html
No, I am not mistaken. She is a criminal; her sorry story is just that, a story. From another article, we find that her husband was an injury victim: "Gross suffered two breaks in her left leg, an ankle fracture in her right, and a severed Achilles' tendon. Her sister, Erika, fared worse -- her left leg was amputated below the knee, she has a compound fracture in her right leg, a broken right ankle, and broken bones in her right foot. Michael Gross reportedly sustained burns and cuts. Nicole Gross emerged from her second surgery in stable condition. "She remembers it all," her mother tells the Charlotte Observer, 'and just wishes that she didn't.'" Why wasn't the husband at the side of the blonde, if he was there? There is no one who fits the description of the husband seen at the blonde's side. Therefore, what kind of horse radish is this?
http://theweek.com/article/index/242918/what-happened-to-the-victims-in-these-3-iconic-boston-marathon-bombing-photos
I'm not convinced that the blonde woman shown with her mother in the article above is the same one seen injured at the bomb site.
So, now I'm looking to find where her "sister" was at. Here is a photo of Erika included with her "sister" and "mother." They are all smiling big-time because they have all cashed in big-time for their parts in the hoax. Erika looks to be the woman who received the contents of Mr. Pouches. I do not recognize Erika's face as anyone else at that bomb site that I've scrutinized well. Note that while the report has Nicole's LEFT leg amputated below the knee, the woman who had her legs spread to receive the pouches is shown correctly with a full right leg, but then only her upper left leg is shown, making it possible to falsely claim that her left leg below the knee had to be removed.
To verify that the blonde woman on a stretcher in the image I've shown you is the one-shoe blonde, her stretcher image is featured in the article above where Erika's photo is found. I have found another image of her on a stretcher, and it shows even her upper LEFT leg bound in a white cloth (i.e. both upper legs were so bound). Neither of her legs in their upper parts showed injury, however. They also tied a blue band around her left arm, but that arm shows no blood / injury. I'm starting to think that the monkeys who produced this theatrical stunt are much better at eating bananas than deceiving the public, and yet all the "intelligent" media barons have been "fooled." How can that be?
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonBlondeStretcher2.jpg
I also found an image shown in the last update, but with a wider scene that shows the blonde on the sidewalk with a white cloth around her upper right leg; look between the legs of what looks to be a fireman in the image below. Why did they put that on??? She wasn't bleeding at that leg location.
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonBlondeCloth.jpg
After having seen the woman who received the contents of the pouches (I'm very sure that's what happened), compare her body to that of Erika in the webpage below, because the one in the page below, with missing leg shown, is very plump. It's not the same woman, I do not think, though they look alike in ways, suggesting that the plump one is being passed off as that woman. A woman losing her leg and spending 50 days in a hospital is not predicted to gain weight, I do not think. Besides, the ways the articles tell the story, we expect the sisters to be beside one another at the marathon, and so if the pouches lady is supposed to be the sister, it makes sense that the blonde in pink jacket was the one-shoe blonde.
http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/06/03/erika-brannock-last-marathon-bombing-victim-leaves-boston-hospital/uHN50LP2pqaI2SB3uiQiWJ/story.html
Or, perhaps Erika is the plump woman (I don't recall ever seeing her face) attended to by the man in burgundy Coat, for she was beside the blonde. But, the problem is, if that was Erika, then why wasn't Nicole in the scene in the first several seconds after the explosion??? These ladies should be taken to court. I doubt very much that the woman attended to by the man in burgundy coat is the woman we see in the wheelchair above. In a court case, the prosecutor has full legal rights to all the videos.
Although we can't see much of her hair, if any at all, the plump woman at the injury site looks to have black hair, but perhaps it's just a shadow. Yet, in the non-smooth video, she definitely has black hair, as for example you see at the :23-29 point of this video. What we need to find is an article telling who Erika was at the injury scene. Then, someone can analyze it and decide whether a court case is warranted to break this entire hoax open before the world watching. Is there anyone out there who wants to be famous? Go ahead, make my day.
According to the boston.com article above, the man in burgundy did not use his own belt, and yet, in the Wikipedia image, the man in burgundy has both hands at his buckle area, apparently removing his belt. Here is the claim by Erika: "...a woman approached Brannock [while lying injured]. 'I'm Joan from California, and I'm not going to let you go,' Brannock recalls her saying. The woman gave a belt to an EMT [man in burgundy coat didn't look like an EMT] to make a tourniquet for Brannock...Joan] had short brown hair and a yellow jacket. I honestly don't believe I'd be here if it weren't for her.'" I know of no short-haired Joan, nor any other woman, who remained with the woman on her back under the burgundy coat, meaning that I really don't know whether that woman was Erika.
One way to explain the faked injuries against the argument that it would be difficult to get hospitals to comply with fake jobs is that the fakers simply did not go to the hospital. If the hospital leader(s) was an insider pawn, then that hospital could simply create records of their visits even though they did not visit. Still, this is the hardest argument to overcome when accusing this event as a hoax. It implies a good number of pawns at the hospital willing to wink with the hoax. But the photographic evidence suggests a hoax, and so there must have been winking hospital staff who were, very likely, pre-planned (and well-paid) parts of the hoax before the event took place.
We read that Erika's a "pre-school teacher" from Maryland, but as such, she may not truly belong to any school. If she does belong to a school, then it would be very difficult to feign her injuries, unless she handed in her resignation in writing without anyone at the school seeing her body. Then, for her public appearances without the leg, either doctored photos would be sent to media outlets, and/or doubles would be used who are true amputees. It's feasible to get away with such a thing where there are experts in this "field." The more the comments from supposed relatives that are found in media articles, the harder it is for the general people to see this as a hoax. But experts know how to sell it.
There is an article below that is very difficult to explain for those of us who are convinced of a hoax. But it adds: "When [Erika] was released from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in early June, she was the last of the 250-plus injured bombing victims to be released from the hospital." There were NOT 250 injury victims. It is a sheer lie. There were but 25 at the scene that I'm discussing, and not all required hospitalization. The claim of over 100 injury victims is ludicrous.
The headline reads: "Boston Marathon bombing victim Erika Brannock reunited with preschool students four months after attack". It's very hard to claim a hoax when she is at the school visiting the kids and other teachers who would have known her with both legs, and yet just look at the pictures because she appears with a covering (her dress) like a tent over her legs so that we really don't know whether she has lost any one of them. Her foot / ankle could be tied underneath the other leg so that the foot doesn't hang down to visibility below the dress line. This Erika we see in the picture may not be the one we saw earlier with one leg missing for certain. The experts know how to do this.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/marathon-bombing-victim-reunited-students-article-1.1438035
We see children in the photos, but who are they? Do they really know this woman who may be acting for the camera? We see adults in the photos, but who are they? Insiders? Aha, the school is said to be new: "Erika Brannock was reunited with her students on Friday at the grand opening of the new Davenport Preschool in Towson, Md. Brannock is one of 18 teachers on staff, and even though she is still recovering from her injuries, she was elated just to hang out with the kids again for a day." How could 18 teachers all be deceived? How well was she known by the rest of the teachers if this is the grand opening months after the marathon? What if she was an amputee all along while the other teachers didn't know it because she had just been hired? Perhaps the owner of the school is an insider, and the insiders all arranged one injury victim (Erika) to become an employee of sorts (not really, but just to be able to make the claim) without telling us the real details.
The Towson school, headed by the former director of Trinity Episcopal Children's Center, will start its first session in fall 2013.
...Davenport Preschool, at 1301 Cheverly Road in Towson, is starting the process of enrolling students ages 2 through 4 for the fall 2013 school year
http://towson.patch.com/groups/schools/p/davenport-preschool-opening-at-former-church-site
Another article that adds nothing new suggests that Erika was perhaps NOT a teacher of this pre-school group previously: "The former director from Trinity Episcopal Children's Center and founder of Davenport Preschool in Hampton, Liz Harlan, told the Sun that Erika was all set to begin teaching at Davenport Preschool this fall." When other articles say "re-united" with her students, is that word perhaps a stretch?
http://www.examiner.com/article/boston-marathon-bombings-md-preschool-teacher-erika-brannock-intensive-care
Here's another picture of Nicole's husband, where Nicole, as always, doesn't look like the blonde in the marathon images. The hair doesn't look right. The one at the marathon has "bigger" hair.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/face-boston-tragedy-article-1.1318456
I have read several articles on Erika, and none describe what place she was at in the injury zone; none give details that could identify her there. Why not? There are at least six photos of her "sister" from the injury scene; why didn't anyone doing an article on Erika publish just one photo of Erika at the injury scene?
If you go online to read articles on Nicole Gross, you will think that I am an absolute creep for speaking about her as I do. The articles feel her pain, but the writers are fools. If she really had broken bones in her legs, how did she shift about, moving at least twice as per the three blonde images? One needs to apply pressure on the legs to shift about on the sidewalk while on one's arse. The person needs to have all weight on all fours to do that. The pain would have been on her face. There was no pain obvious on her face, and, of course, those fools who would fool the fools just say that she was, of course, too much in shock to show pain.
I'm not trying to insult you if you take a different viewpoint. I'm using frank language for my position. They say I'm the fool, and I say they are the deceived. It can be said without insult. The only difference between their view and mine is fake injuries. No one can argue that injuries cannot be faked well enough these days to look real. There is no use, therefore, insulting me for my position. My position is that there have been so many paste jobs that the insiders can no longer release the videos for fear of their paste jobs being discovered. There has not been a video of the blonde released. Just be sensible: if this were a real event, wouldn't the entire video of the blonde be released? Is it profane to reveal a video of the injured? How convenient for the plotters if the nation should feel that way.
After writing all the above, I came across a picture of the blonde beside her black bag and missing shoe at the near-moment of the explosion. I had not spotted her there in the non-smooth "video" even though she's in it. Here is the image:
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonBlondeEarliest.jpg
This image can be seen partially at about the 25-second point of the All-Fake-Injuries video. If I had known about her being at that spot from before the writing of this update, I would not have found her sleeves, at the 11-second mark, in front of Lenscrafters. If I was correct to find her sleeves there, then she must be pasted into this series of pictures where she appears above on the back side of the man in grey hood. I don't know how long after the marathon this series of pictures came out, but it is definitely laced with paste jobs and problems requiring further fixes.
Having now found her beside the man in burgundy at the moment of the explosion begs the question of why the woman beside her -- the one attended to by the man in burgundy -- has very-dark-brown hair while the blonde's "sister" is shown with light hair. Is it really as simple as dyed hair? It's a serious question: where is her sister? Didn't the media ask this question? Then why hasn't the media reported on where she was at the injury site? By now, all the articles on the sister would tell of it if it was ever revealed. Who, then, is the fool, me who asks the pointed questions, or the media that does not, or the people who follow the media that does not?
I admit that I've made many mistakes trying to understand this mystery, but at least I'm trying by asking the difficult questions and sharing my answers while going along. Shouldn't the media behave in that way, unafraid of making mistakes while trying to get at truths? No one expects the media to be God-perfect. By being too safe, the media becomes practically useless. I read, over and over again, entire articles with one short paragraph on something new, while the rest of the article is a re-hash of old news already told. That's not exactly what one would consider digging for the truth.
Plus, the problem still exists that the blood stain supposedly made by the injured leg of the blonde was there before she got to the spot. Besides, with at least one broken leg, how did she walk there, carrying her bag even? Couldn't she have left her bag beside her sister? Or, why did she get up to walk a few steps away from her sister? Or, just let us see the video of her taking these few steps, and that will be almost enough. Then, show us her sister. We already know Jeff was a fake; we now want to know about the "iconic" blonde, the goddess of the marathon event.
Perhaps her sister is the one I've been calling the young red-haired woman, for she likewise wears red sleeves and a black vest / outfit over the red shirt. She's the one that seems to be missing in various images, as though pasted in. She's the one supposedly lying in the same position from the Jeff-invisible image (1:38 after the blast) to the new-to-me image below that's now time-able between three and four minutes in. Understand that the cowboy ran her over while wrapping up the wood fence at about two minutes in, and yet, here she is in the same position, on her side, at the same place, without the sight of brutal injury, more than three minutes in. Not credible. It's a hoax folks.
http://www.tribwatch.com/bostonStretcher4.jpg
Below is a similar image seconds apart from the one above, but with the timeclock showing 3 minutes and 11 seconds after the blast, with the Negro women in her stretcher.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hahatango/8652900625/sizes/k/in/set-72157633252445135/
The young woman with red hair is beside the man with 'B' on his back, who himself blocks the Jeff spot where Jeff is supposedly still on the sidewalk. There you can now see the Negro on her stretcher at the far right. I would be able to time this image more precisely had the Silva video not cut us off just before the three minute mark. The scene is much different here, with several new people, than when the Silva video ended. There you can see the cowboy leaving the street curb for the first time, and making his way toward Jeff. Still, it's over three minutes in and still he hasn't the soul to go help Jeff. Yet the media fools treated him like a hero. Who's the fool? Not me.
Again, the Negro woman is on a stretcher while Jeff is supposedly on the floor at this time wondering if he's going to live. No one is paying him any attention, but the media have not the decency to ask the hard question, and report it to us: why wasn't Jeff taken on the stretcher first? Shouldn't the media have made an issue out of that? Yes, wherefore please, do not regard me as the fool, for there is clearly a well-defined conspiracy taking place with the media heads involved.
Looking Nicole Brannock up at Intelius, we find the woman claiming to be the marathon injury victim. As places of employment listed, she has worked at the Wellness Center and a Masonic-suspect Eta Sigma Gamma organization. She has no relatives listed with a Gross surname, and does not come up as "Nicole Gross," suggesting that she is not married to Michael Gross, which explains why he was not at her side in the injury field. Online articles tell that Michael Gross is of Charlotte, North Carolina: "This undated photo made available by Brian Gross shows his sister-in-law Nicole Gross, a former University of Tennessee swimmer, and brother Michael Gross of Charlotte, N.C." It may be "undated" because it was taken after the marathon, and the insiders want us to think it was taken before the marathon. Nicole looks exactly as she does when posing with her "mother" in other pictures. This mother is listed as a relative in the Nicole Brannock Intelius page above.
https://www.govolsxtra.com/news/2013/apr/16/former-ut-swimmer-nicole-gross-injured-at-boston/
However, there is a Michael A. Gross of Maryland addresses (District Heights, Suitland, Hyattsville and Lanham, all of Maryland) listed with a relative, NicHole Gross (with an 'h'), and yet Brian, Michael's brother isn't listed (see page below). First of all, I'm sure that it is, or was, possible to provide for Intelius your own private information for public viewing so that the insiders could have provided this and other listings pertaining to Nicole Brannock Gross. Secondly, Michael A. Gross is listed as 56 years old, while Nicole is said to be 31. Her "husband" does not look to be 56.
http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&qf=Michael&qmi=&qn=Gross&qcs=maryland&focusfirst=0
When searching "Michael A. Gross" in North Carolina, what do you know, what a coincidence, there is a Michael Alan Gross, age 33, with "Nicole Gross" listed as a relative. By what coincidence do they both have a middle name starting with 'A', yet are of different ages and different locations? The one with a NicHole Gross relative is from Maryland, where Erika Brannock is said to be from. Michael Alan Gross is listed with only two addresses, one in Charlotte and the other in Knoxville, Tennessee. It just so happens that article on Nicole Brannock Gross tell that she is from Knoxville, Tennessee. Therefore, the insiders could have provided for Intelius this particular listing, but the Michael Alan Gross (has an Allen Gross listed as a relative) that is acting as her husband may in reality be of the family (perhaps a son) of Michael A Gross, age 56, of Maryland.
The page below, where the above on Michael Alan Gross was obtained, has two Michael Alan Gross' listed, both age 33, both of Charlotte, NC, but with different relatives. Very suspicious. The Michael above is listed with Royce Gross, Susan Gross, Allen Gross, and Nicole Gross, while the other Michael is listed with Tamar Gross, Mona Gross, Nicole Gross, and Jeffrey Gross. How does that happen?
http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&qf=Michael&qmi=a&qn=Gross&qcs=NC&focusfirst=0
However, there is a listing for a Brian Alan Gross, age 39, with Royce Gross, Susan Gross, Rrin Gross [should probably be "Erin"], and Allen Gross listed as relatives. It's as if this Brian knows the people on the first-listed Michael above, but does not know the people in the family of the second-listed Michael.
http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&qf=brian&qmi=&qn=Gross&qcs=NC&focusfirst=0
The page below has a listing for "Nicole Elizabeth Gross," age 31, of Charlotte, with "Brannock" not listed, and with the following relatives: Tamar Gross, Mona Gross, Michael Gross, Jeffrey Gross, and Mary Wall. Hmm, that Wall surname throws a curve ball at us, but, whatever it may mean, note that this Nicole knows only the family of the first-listed Michael above. The same page shows a listing for a Nicole Gross of North Carolina (no age provided) with no relatives listed, but knows four places where she has worked, her Charlotte location, and her other surname, Brannock. It seems clear in the latter case that the information deliberately reflects marathon-begotten information, while leaving out her sister's and mother's names as relatives.
http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&qf=nicole&qmi=&qn=Gross&qcs=NC&focusfirst=0
There is a listing for a Royce Alan Gross, age 72, with Brian and Michael listed (probably sons) along with Susan Gross (age 69). It's not likely possible to know all the hoax-related realities from this information alone, unless one has access to Intelius files. Anyone taking Nicole / Michael to court could have such access, to discover when these files were created, whether before or after the marathon, and if before, how long before, and from what computer the information originated if it was given up voluntarily by anyone(s). Just watch your back.
http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&qf=royce+&qmi=&qn=Gross&qcs=NC&focusfirst=0
Noting that Royce Alan Gross is said to go by just "Alan Gross," see a New Jersey Herald article telling that Michael Gross' parents are Alan and Susan. I can't get to the page without a password, but the Google result reads like so:
New Jersey Herald - Former Sparta athlete, wife among injured in ...
www.njherald.com/story/.../former-sparta-athlete-among-boston-injured
18 Apr 2013 ... Both of Nicole Gross' legs were broken, while her sister had multiple breaks and had to ... said he had not heard of Gross' injuries at the Boston Marathon, but he said Gross was ... Michael's parents are Alan and Susan Gross.https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22nicole+gross%22+%22susan+gross%22+marathon&btnG=Search&hl=en-CA&gbv=1
It's not likely that Alan in the article above was the son (or anyone other than) Royce Alan because both men would then have married Susans. This means that Michael (age 33) was born when Susan (age 69) was 36 years old. An alternative view, if that's not palatable, is that Michael had some other parents besides Royce Alan and Susan.
Look it. Come to your senses, America. If the husband was at the injury zone, he would have been with his wife. If we ever get the insider excuse as to why he wasn't at her side, I'm sure it will be as fine-sounding as possible, but as he reportedly suffered only cuts and burns, he should have been there, not taken away early. What fine-sounding excuse can there be for his not being at her side? Something is wrong on an elaborate level. One doesn't feign something like this unless a lot of work was put into it. Virtually the entire family should be suspected as insiders / winkers.
Let's go back to the Michael Alan Gross listed with the relatives, Royce Gross, Susan Gross, Allen Gross, and Nicole Gross, but leaving out the other set of kin (in Michael's other listing) that included Tamar Gross, Mona Gross, Nicole Gross, and Jeffrey Gross. If I understand Intelius correctly, it has the means not to make this "error." The Intelius computer should recognize, by the commonalities in both lists, that all eight names should be on both lists. For example, if Intelius knows enough to add Nicole to both lists (or did the insiders arrange for this?), as well as appearing in the listing of Jeffrey Gross, then Royce and Michael should appear in Jeffrey's listing. However, there is a Jeffrey Davis Gross, age 37, listed with Susan Gross, Nicole Gross, and Mona and Tamar Gross...but no Royce or Michael Gross shown. Intelius would be "smarter" than that in an Internet split-second.
The point is that I'm looking for the genuineness of these listings, whether they were partly concocted for people like me who look up the genuineness of the marathon injuries. Why should Nicole, a relative to the Gross' by marriage only, be in Jeffrey's listing while her husband Michael is not???
Jeffrey is of age to be only the brother of Michael (anyone that close can be placed into a suspects list), though that begs the question of why Royce Alan Gross, husband of Susan and father of Michael, does not appear in Jeffrey's list while Susan does. Could Jeffrey be Susan's son while not Royce's son? Yes, Jeffrey could be the son of one of Mona's husbands, and by that means the half-brother of Michael.
Mona P Gross is listed at 72 years old (same age as Royce), with Michael Gross, Nicole Gross, Tamar Gross (of age to be Mona's daughter) and Jeffrey Gross as kin. If the ages are correct, she can't be Royce's sister, unless they are twins. Was Mona Royce's other wife, and mother of another set of children (including Jeffrey) that are only half-siblings to Michael? Fine. But why would Mona have Michael, not her son, in her listing, while excluding Royce if indeed he was her husband?
http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&qf=mona&qmi=&qn=Gross&qcs=NC&focusfirst=0
In her listing, Tamar Gross (age 51) is listed with Jeffrey Gross, and has an alternative Fox surname, suggesting Jeffrey's sister (Tamar's too young to be Jeffreys mother and probably too old to be his wife). However, Jeffrey and Tamar are 14 years apart.
It's suspicious that Nicole appears even in Mona's listing, especially if Mona was merely Michael's step-mother. Reminder: "there is a "Nicole Elizabeth Gross," age 31, of Charlotte, with "Brannock" not listed, having the following relatives: Tamar Gross, Mona Gross, Michael Gross, Jeffrey Gross, and Mary Wall." Both Mona (age 72) and Nicole Elizabeth (age 31) are listed in Charlotte only, and as such Nicole may somehow be Mona's granddaughter, not Michael's wife. I'm simply not keen on Nicole being part of so many kin lists if she was only kin by marriage. It's feasible that the insiders would have chosen two unmarried people to feign marriage for the hoax' sake, where both have the same last name (of course), and both are found in similar kin lists online. The insiders full-well know that the public can check these lists. Yes, Nicole appears regularly with Michael in the kin lists, but is she really his wife? My mind has become a little fried with the workload, so I may be missing something, but maybe not. Maybe the bolts are still on tight enough to float a ship.
In order for Nicole Gross to be a granddaughter of Mona, the latter could have been married to a Gross, or else given birth to a daughter who married a Gross. Recall the Michael A Gross of Maryland, age 56, with a "Nichole Gross" listed as a relative; this Michael (up to 17 years younger than Mona) may have been Mona's son...and husband of Tamar (age 51), potentially explaining why Tamar Gross is listed multiple times as kin of a Michael Gross.
Another Michael Gross of Maryland is listed as both Michael D. Gross and Michael A Gross, age 30 (of age to be the son of 56-year old Michael A Gross). He not only has a New Jersey address, as does Tamar, but his kin are listed as Nicolle Gross, Debra Giordano, Carlos Gross, and Nicole Malave. It may even suggest the possibility that the goddess of the marathon injury zone (i.e. the blonde) may have been Nicole Malave (her name possibly by marriage).
Tamar is listed also with a Giti Gross, who shows up as 28 years old with Tamar and Michael Gross listed as kin. Giti is shown with no alternative surnames, and all her listed kin are Gross', suggesting that she's the sister of Michael A Gross, age 30, as well as the daughter of Tamar and Michael A Gross, age 56.
There is an Erika (Monique) Gross (with Noonan alternative surname) listed as an employee of "Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency". That is very interesting where Homeland Security is a chief suspect in this government-run hoax. Erika (age 37) is listed with five Noonan kin and three Gross kin, and as such she may have been a Noonan by marriage. In other words, she may have been a Gross by birth, and therefore closely related to Nicole Gross (even an actual sister), but neither of them were Brannocks at all. The Brannock connection may then have been purely for the purpose of feigning their mother, 57-year old Carol Downing of Maryland, also known as Carol Brannock...but shown at her link above as "Scarff W Downing." When I see "W Scarff," it reminds me of "Scherff," the true birth surname of George Herbert W Bush, father of George W Bush. George HW Bush was born George Herbert Scherff, son of a Nazi operative. I was convinced of that online theory by various proofs of my own finding (see fourth update of April, 2011, for starter details).
http://www.intelius.com/results.php?ReportType=1&qf=erika+&qmi=&qn=Gross&qcs=MD&focusfirst=0
George W Bush founded Homeland Security, and as such it can be suspect as being filled with neo-Nazi types of the high-level government kind (not your average skinhead thugs, but probably thugs just the same). Isn't Michael Gross a bald man??? Didn't George H.W. Bush shave his head bald recently (on behalf of the young son of one of his security guards)? A Peggy Noonan was Special Assistant to Ronald Reagan, the president who lifted George H.W Bush out of his high-level spy life into the White House. The world has never been the same since. Noonan, who worked also for president George H.W Bush, is a wealthy New Yorker, and a writer for the Wall Street Journal; she married the "chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce." High levels, indeed.
But let's go back to Erika Gross/Noonan of Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, "a part of the Science and Technology Directorate at the United States Department of Homeland Security. Much like DARPA in the Department of Defense, HSARPA is tasked with advanced projects to advance the technology needed to protect the US. Some of the chief beneficiaries of HSARPA are the Customs and Border Protection, and the Office of Intelligence and Analysis." Big hmmmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSARPA
It just so happens that one of the listed addresses of Erika Gross/Noonan is in District Heights, Maryland, which is also the place listed where Michael A. Gross, age 56, had/has a home, who is himself listed with a Nichole Gross. In fact, if one has Javascript on and clicks the "View All" link at Erika's address list, we see that she also lived in Suitland, Maryland, yet another place listed as an address of the same Michael A Gross. Suddenly, we have reason to link Michael Gross to Homeland Security. Moreover, Washington DC is yet another place listed under Erika's addresses. She is also listed in Washington state, for what that may be worth.
The Anthony Noonan listed as one of her relatives is 35 years old (of age to be her husband / brother), and the Robert Noonan listed with her shows at age 69 (32 years older than she), suggesting her father. That would be the first piece of evidence that she was born a Noonan, and then married a Gross. She may have been a wife of Michael A Gross of Maryland, therefore, and a mother of the Michael Gross posing as the blonde's husband.
Now keep your eye on this ball, because a coincidence just took place as I continued. Robert Noonan above has a Christa Lucke (age 43) listed as a relative, as well as an Antia Noonan (age 40) and Erika Gross (age 37), possibly all his daughters. Christa Beth Lucke (shows Erika Gross as a relative) has an alternative name, Christa B. Noonan, wherefore she passes as his daughter. Christa is listed as an employee Anne Arundel County Public Schools in Maryland, which can jibe with the Maryland, pre-school-teacher job of Erika "Brannock," whom in this theoretical picture is really Erika Gross/Noonan.
The eye-popper is Antia R. Noonan (shows details shared with the family of Robert and Erika Noonan), alternatively Antia R. CAMPBELL. It's an eye-popper because, just before starting on this Intelius section, I had found the webpage below showing me some new things, one of which was the photo of the blonde at the moment of explosion beside the man with the grey hood. But I also found the name of another injury victim who lay near the young red-haired woman, and her name was Krystle CAMPBELL (age 29). That is completely interesting, especially if the red-haired woman (wears clothing colors of the blonde) turns out to be the blonde's sister, Erika Brannock.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=302451&page=2
The idea here is simple, that Antia Noonan married a Campbell family that contributed Krystle Campbell to the hoax. While Nicole Gross and Michael Gross (age 33) are said in Intelius to be from Knoxville, Tennessee, Antia Noonan/Campbell has an address listed in Smyrna, Tennessee.
I don't know how much garbage or reality I'm writing, but what are the chances that, while investigating these names starting from the blonde's reported name, I come to one of the few faked marathon deaths? I expect that only insiders were invited to her wake. I don't know the rest; you'd have to ask the government-level hoax experts how this was done. But it was done. It wouldn't be the first faked funeral conducted by a government agency. From the news channel with the all-seeing-eye, here are the elaborate funeral details, if we can trust them:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57580716/mourners-farewell-boston-marathon-bombing-victim-krystle-campbell/
The flip side of the coin of elaborate media treatment is just the small-time conspiracy theorist who gets no respect but from his own kind. How did Ii ever come to be part of that group? It was never my goal. Here is part of the flip side:
According to the media is was said that the Campbells claimed a [dead] body, that is at Massachusetts General. Yet, the hospital says [Krystle] Campbell was never taken to the facility and, what's more, the hospital has no record of her as a patient there. A major hospital doesn't even know if it received an amputee or a corpse? No one there knows about receiving a bleed-out patient? Someone is definitely lying.
...Yet, as reported on CNN the hospital shows no record of treating or triaging a Krystle Campbell...Even so, according to the tall-tale disseminated by the family, specifically her father [William A Campbell Jr], the family went [to the hospital] to see their daughter...Yet, as reported by Jason Carroll regarding Mass General, speaking to Anderson Cooper, "a [hospital] spokeswoman would only tell us...that at this point there is no official record of a Krystle Campbell being here at the hospital."
Then, if she wasn't there, where was she?...Surely, in real life she would have been delivered to the hospital as a priority triage patient precisely for resuscitation, the placement of central lines, IV fluids, blood, oxygen, and more. Since none of this was done it would appear that her death would be a phony. That matches photographs on the ground where it appears that Campbell or her likeness is play acting as if dead. It truly is a play; they are all surrounded by handlers and DHS [= Department of Homeland Security] agents, not real EMTs. Regarding this, there can be no dispute.
http://nodisinfo.com/Home/lu/
The insiders can change the above, make the hospital say something else eventually. Maybe that's already happened. I've never studied this woman until now, and didn't even know she had been one of the death victims. It suggests that the insiders didn't feel very good about promoting her part of the plot due to serious problems. For one, the politicalforum.com article above shows her in one image with a foot, and in another image with no foot. She reportedly had both legs removed by the bomb.
The writer of the nodisinfo article makes plenty of assessments, and I sympathize with his errors because I made quite a few of my own, for there are so many mysteries coming at the investigator all at once it tends to confuse. I agree with the writer in parts, and in parts not. He/she goes into great detail to discuss inconsistencies. He/she is sincere, without a selfish motive whatsoever. He shows Krystle Campbell much undressed on her stretcher, and without flinching calls the people taking her away, Homeland Security people. And he is rightfully indignant in that the people taking her away are not medical people, fully expected in a controlled hoax.
For my record if nothing more, there is a new-to-me image of "checkered-shirt Bauman" with only his right leg showing, at the nodisinfo page above. At the same page, the writer of the page below comments: "Her leg looks severed or mangled beneath her in one photo, then attached and straight for the gurney [stretcher] run, what more evidence of [cowpatties] is needed?" It's hard to argue with that, regardless of how much material one uses from medical professionals, real or cyber-faked. Here's from his treatment on the same woman:
http://anywho.simplesite.com/201858941
It wasn't until seeing the images in the webpage above that it turned out, yes, after all, that the left leg of checkered-shirt Bauman was gone below the knee. Both images of the blonde medic taking the pulse of Krystle at her jugular show his left leg severely injured, thus proving for me that he was supposed to be, in Plan A, "Jeff Bauman." Here is one of the taking-pulse images from my own files:
http://www.tribwatch.com/boston.CheckeredBauman.jpg
For whatever reason, my system will no longer view videos, but I'll offer the following to you even though I haven't seen it's merit, in case there's something to it. It's called, Exposed Boston Bomb Amputee Seen Wiping Fake Blood On Leg After Blast, and it happens to be Krystle Campbell and her friend wiping the blood. I hope this is damning.
Some Marathon-Important Heraldry
It's time for some heraldry and similar talk that leads, once again, to the Durance-river theater of southern France, and the Salyes Ligures there, what must always be at the root of Rosicrucianism / Masonry. Entering "Brannock" gets the Byrnie/Birnie surname that could conceivably stem from "Briancon", a location on the Durance river. To the south of the river is a Var area and a Draguignan location to which I trace dragonline Vere's, and I know for a fact that the red wyvern of the Drake surname comes from the dukes of Masovia, in Poland, where Warsaw is the capital. There is a Warsaw location in Indiana, where a neo-Nazi group (called WAR -- White Aryan Resistance) is/was operating, which group was related to the neo-Nazi "capital" in Idaho's Post Falls area (at Hayden Lake, to be exact), where Aryan Nation operated out of. I had investigated a Dein family in that Idaho location for two reasons: 1) a Jeffrey Dein had been married to someone who emailed me regularly; 2) Jeffrey Dein's sister, I believe it was (this story starts in a September-2011 update), had married a Scheriff surname from West Islip, New York, right beside Patchogue, where Adolf Hitler's nephew came to live and have sons.
The Scheriff surname was under suspicion with the Scherff birth surname of George H.W. Bush. The point here is that Jeffrey Dein, and his brother, Michael Dein, were found, using Intelius, with addresses in Warsaw, Indiana. There was at least one other Jeffrey, if I recall correctly, in the Jeffrey-Dein family, but the point is that I now come across a Jeffrey and Michael Gross involved closely with a Scarff W Downing at this staged marathon event...where I expect alias names to be used all over the place. At the risk of being way-off course, I thought I should jot this down. (Michael / Jeffrey Dein and others of that topic can be found in the 2nd and 3rd updates of September, 2011, the 2nd of February, 2012, in three updates of March, 2012, the 3rd of April, 2012, and in my file, http://www.tribwatch.com/up/bushNazi.htm).
I've just re-loaded the Jeffrey-Dein page for Indiana to find him using an alias name, S. Dunmore, which could be a branch of the Downing/Dunning surname. There is even a Dunn/Down surname, first found in Sussex, and then the Dun-like Deins, Diens, Dans, and Danners, amongst similar others, were all first found in Sussex (England), where also the Covert/Coffert surname was first found. Jeffrey Dein was married to a Covert surname of Post Falls, Idaho.
The Covert/Coffert Coat uses a white-on-red fesse bar, as does the Brannock Cost. Scarff W Downing is otherwise Carol Brannock, we learned above from Intelius. As Jeffrey Dein is said to go by "S Dunmore," note that the Dunmore Coat uses the colors of the Coffers/Coffare's and the Coffers/Coffeys, for the latter are likely a branch of Cofferts/Coverts.
More importantly, it's got to be said that the Coffers trace easily to "Taran," an ancient part of Lake Van (Armenia) otherwise called Mus. People carrying the latter term were traced (by me) on some solid evidence to MUSkerry, in the Cork theater of Ireland, and only later did I discover that the Coffers/Coffeys were first found in Cork. It's important because the naked rider on a dolphin in the Coffer/Coffey Crest is a symbol used in the Arms of TARANto, in southern Italy.
But even before discovering that the Coffers/Coffeys out of Taranto had moved to Muskerry and Cork with their Mus-of-Armenia kin, I realized that the red heraldic eagle was the legendary phoenix to be traced specifically to Taran and Mus. It took me a while to realize that mythical Phoenix, known symbol of Phoenicia, was named after the Phoenician city of Panias, which is known to be named as per mythical Pan, the goat = Satyr. It just so happens that a mythical SATYRion was anciently made the spouse of mythical Taranto (in southern Italy). The point is that, from my earliest investigations into mythology, I traced "PAN" to the Biaini namers of Lake VAN.
The paragraph above was to set up what you'll see in this paragraph. I traced the red heraldic eagle confidently to Pan / Panias / Phoenix elements out of Lake Van / Taran because the Taran(t) surname uses red eagles. But the same red-on-white eagles are used in the Noonan Coat, and Noonans were first found in Cork!!! If you recall, Noonans came into the Gross discussion by an out-on-the limb venture by me in equating Erika Brannock of Maryland with Erica Gross of Maryland.
By the way, the Scarff surname was first found in the same place (Yorkshire) as Walkers and Bush's, and for those who don't know, Walkers and Schere's/Scherfs use similar Coats. The Scarffs use white wolves, symbol also of the Gore-related Quillans, named after a Quillan location (smack beside Rennes-le-Chateau) in France's Aude region. This is important because heraldic mottoes are codes for surnames in many, many cases, and "aude" happens to be a motto term in the Brannock Coat.
If that's not enough, the sword design and colors of the Aude surname are used by Downings!!! It's all in the family in MasonicLand. The Downings above were first found in...Cork...same place as Noonans!!!! You now have more circumstantial suspicions to link Carol Downing, reported mother supposed Erika Brannock, to Erika Gross, also known as Erika Noonan. Downings share the stag with Downs/Dunns.
As the Pollocks of Renfrew were traced to the Quillan area's De-Pole surname while "Renfrew" itself traces to "Rennes," it needs to be repeated that the nephew of Adolf Hitler, William Hitler (the one who moved to the Islip area of New York), re-named himself, William Stuart-Houston as per Stewart and Houston families of Glasgow, in Renfrew (Adolf Hitler's mother was a POLzl surname, but his father had also married a Glassl surname traceable to "Glasgow"; Houstons, first found in Glasgow, use an hourGLASS symbol as code for those Glass elements). The Burns (share a bugle with Pollocks) are said to be from a Bernys location in Renfrew, and then Brannocks are shown, not only as "Birnie," but as "Burny." It may not, therefore, be coincidental that the Burn Coat is a chevron in colors reversed to the Scarff chevron.
The Hazels/Hassals use so-called "hazel SLIPS," an obvious code for Islip elements (means that "Hazel" and "Islip" are related family terms). The Islips, first found in the same place (Yorkshire) as Scarffs, use the Maxwell stag (Pollocks are an official sept of Maxwells) sitting in a holly tree, though the Maxwells officially call it a holly BUSH as code for their kinship with Bush's. The Hazels/Hassals use hazel leaves otherwise called linden leaves by the Swedish Lindens.
Scottish Lindens (red roses for Rus / Rosicrucian elements from Rhodes) use the three Noonan / Taran eagles in colors reversed, and then I've been tracing Lindens to the Danaans of LINDOS (Rhodes) for years, and it just so happens that mythical Danaus, founder of the Danaans, was mythically made a family member of the Agenor > Phoenix household. It means that the white Lindos eagle is the red phoenix in colors reversed. English Lindens (share the gold leopard with the Rhodes surname of LINcolnshire, previously called Lindsey) were first found in the same place (Somerset) as Taran-rooted Coffers/Coffare's and Trents (smack of the Tarans/Tarants) who themselves use a white eagle (in Crest) and red roses. Moreover, Trents use the motto, AUGEo." Tarans/Tarants were first found in the same place (Dorset) as Russells who trace to "Roussillon," in the Aude part of France, where Rodez was also located. Scottish Lindens were first found in Lothian, where Roslin is also located, and then the Spanish called Roussillon by a Rosellon term.
We get it, that the Taran-Mus Armenians of the Phoenix cult passed through Rhodes and merged there with Danaans.
Unfortunately, I cannot verify whether or not the German Gross surname uses a linden / hazel leaf. English Gross' were first found in the same place (Norfolk) as Dunhams/DOWNhams, which recalls the Gross-Downing relationship in the marathon hoax under one Obama, whose mother was a Dunham surname. Moreover, the Dunhams use the Coat of English RANDolphs, and the friend of Krystle Campbell, who lies injured beside Krystle, is a Rand surname. Obama, who is shown online with a Randolph family in his Dunham ancestry, is reported online to have personally visited with this Rand woman. Rands were first found in the same place (Lincolnshire) as Rhodes and other Lindos elements. Ranulf le Meschin (Mus elements) of Cheshire, where Hazels were first found, married a woman from Lincolnshire, and Wikipedia shows his personal lion as a red-on-gold upright one, the Rand symbol, meaning that Rands were likely named after RANulph le Meschin. I have, for years, insisted that Scottish Randolphs were named after this same Ranulph le Meschin, and moreover the related Masci's / Masseys of Cheshire lived in Dunham Masci / Dunham Massey, the place to which I've traced Obama's mother's surname. The bat in the Scottish Randolph Coat has been traced without doubt to the Baths/Atha's and Battins/Badens of Somerset, where we just saw Mus / Taran elements above. .
The Coat of Scottish Randolphs is used by Baths/Atha's, and then I traced "Atha" to MacHETH in Moray, which place was also Elginshire, where Brannocks were first found. Ranulph le Meschin's son, Ranulph de Gernon, was traced to a Foetes/Fussen location (Bavaria, where German Lindens were first found) on the Lech river of Germany because the Gernon motto uses, "CyFOETH." Then, while the Arms of Foetes/Fussen uses three human LEGs, we see three human legs in the Brannock Coat, which we can assume to be code for the namers of the Lech river. There is even a Footes location on Guernsey, a term like "Gernon," and moreover there are Foot and Fothes surnames both using similar Coats and first found in Cheshire, where de Gernon ruled le Meschin's domain. It just so happens that the Lee/Legh/Ligh Coat (surname first found in Cheshire) uses the same lion as the Rand Coat, which is the personal lion of Ranulf le Meschin.
It just so happens that the symbol of the Campbell Coat is called, "gyronny," apparently code for the Gernon bloodline.
The Mus household was traced to Le Mas (white-on-blue lambs in the Lamas Coat) near a related Grasse location (white-on-blue lambs in the Arms of Grasse) in the Draguignan area of southern France, where Ligures lived that likely named the Lee's/Leghs/Lighs. I would venture to trace the Gross surname to Grasse, therefore. The English Grasse surname (colors of the Lamas / Grasse lambs) was first found in Lincolnshire, where le Meschins got his wife, Lucy Taillebois, of the Talbot bloodline, and then the English Gross Crest is a dog that heraldry calls, a talbot, for obvious connection to the Talbots.
Welsh Baumans/Vaughns, first found in the same place (Shropshire, beside Cheshire) as Meschins and Stewarts, use the fleur-de-lys colors of the Sale fleur-de-lys, and the latter were also Sale-of-Mascy, a branch of Salyes Ligures. German Baumans (stag) are in colors of the Foots and stag-using Fothes, and as these latter elements trace to Bavaria's Foetes location, note that Bauers are from Bavaria. Plus, as it was the Gernon motto that traces to Foetes, note the write-up of Welsh Baumans/Vaughns: "First found in Shropshire, where they were descended from Tudor Trevor, the Earl of Hereford, and Lord of Maylors. His wife was descended from Howel Dda, King of South Wales, in 907. Descended was GRONwy, Earl of Hereford..."
The motto of the Fothes is simply, "Industria," a term used in the Arms of Rothschild. The first Rothschild, a banker already, was a Bauer by surname (but changed his name to Rothschild, why?), and he lived in the Rhineland, where Baumans were first found, where also the Bush's/Buschs were first found who trace to "Busca," beside Saluzzo, where the Sale's were from, in the Cuneo area (had a Stura valley named by Satrae Thracians likely from Taranto) that was home to Masci's and to the root of the Rennes / Renfrew bloodline. I traced the colors of Taranto, years ago, to the colors specifically of Bavaria, which are the blue and white colors of the TORONTO maple Leafs, and then the MAY POLE, a satanic symbol used in honor of Bel, the chief god of witchcraft, was gleaned to be the naming of "maple" because may poles were made out of maple wood. The holiday of Bel is on May 1, the day that the Bavarian Illuminati was founded (in 1776), during the life of the first Rothschild.
